I was generalizing. There are some exceptions of course. What is it that you're looking for and what do you expect to find? There have been a number of related studies for what they're worth and what value people place in them. People generally have to be motivated to kill others. It doesn't come naturally. What is or isn't natural is somewhat subjective, I suppose.
Either way, it isn't the typical state of being and interacting with others. Most would much rather avoid mortal conflict in general if given a viable opportunity.
Hi WR3ND. You’ve instigated an interesting thread, if a somewhat unusual one for a game, so anything that I say is said respectfully.
The topic of the manifestations of cruelty and violence in childhood is still very taboo. I think a lot of children go through a period of experimentation, where they begin to investigate what “life” means, what “death” means and the extent of their power over other living things. Deliberately squashing an insect for example is often accompanied by a disturbing fascination. This behaviour seems to be pretty natural and innate, but is usually followed by a sense of the profundity of their actions and even a degree of guilt, or else their behaviour is corrected by social messages.
Of course, you're also correct in saying that a violent, destructive environment will profoundly influence the individuals within it. I just think that we should be wary of idealising things, even children.
My main point is that we shouldn’t be absolutist, and that we have a shared inheritance of violence and constructive social instincts. Of course, the two are not necessary in opposition either. A society will often define itself in relation to what it is not, and “outsiders” can be subjected to all of the violence that its members refrain from venting on each other. We see this tendency in action all around us.
You’ve raised interesting questions about how games might explore more weighty subjects though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game
